Enabling Virtual Machine support

[Tom Buskey]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Tom Buskey <tom at buskey.name> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> > Of all the hypervisors, I feel VirtualBox is the easiest to maintain.
> I've
> > done VMware Server, ESXi and played with KVM.  I wonder about the
> > performance differences but not enough to test :-)
>
>   I loved VMWare until the latest free version of VMWare Server 2.x.
> I was highly annoyed by the fact that they went over to a Tomcat based
> manager.  Specifically, if they wanted to do it, for GODS sake change
> the ports they're using.  I literally gave up trying to get it to
> function on my development systems which where running two versions of
> Tomcat already.  This was on Windows hosts with Linux guests.
>

FWIW, it looks just like ESX.  VMware Server is an advertisement to get you
to buy ESX :-)  It's very easy to transition VMs between the two.  That
advantage is diminishing as the VM vendors standardize on OVF or add support
for the competitor's formats.


>  So after my frustration I tried VirtualBox again.  I'd tried it in
> the past and found it unstable, but the latest versions feel rock
> solid, and much faster.  Add in the native graphics acceleration, and
> it's a win for us at least.
>

I really like the RDP support in VirtualBox.  Right to the BIOS if you need
it.  With VMware, I need to run the console to get to the BIOS.  This ins't
in the GPL version though.


>  Now if only VirtualBox had the same management capabilities, I'd
> consider using it on the servers as well.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/private/gnhlug-discuss/attachments/20090928/945b6bcd/attachment-0001.html